Should a president be willing to meet separately, without preconition...the leaders of ...?

This is the exact same question that was asked of the candidates at the debate, only with "you" changed to "a president."

What does DU think?

In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership,(should a president) be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

"Willing to meet" is not a guarantee of a meeting. Just because a meeting isn't predicated on a foreign leader passing, say, a flat tax, doesn't mean that a president is binding himself or herself to meeting for no reason or no benefit. It just means not treating such meetings as hostages complete with a set of diplomatic ransom demands.

The willingness should be without precondition. The meeting itself obviously will entail conditions.

I'd like to schedule an appointment...

We don't want to legitimize some jerk and allow the meeting to merely be for propaganda purposes. There has to be some understanding that both sides are sincere in holding a meeting; otherwise, it does more harm than good. That said, what should be done, which Mr. Bush has not done, is to aggressively pursue diplomacy and to make reasonable demands so that a summit can take place.

Clinton/Bush Koolaide. A leader of a country is legitimate. Even if we think they are a kook and disagree with their very existence, they are the leader (and have the power over) their respective citizenry.

Enough of this back room bullshit. This world would be a much better place if people quit playing the power-grab games and just sat down and COMMUNICATED with each other. Never happen in this world of 'image and soundbytes' but one can dream...

You would support a president flying to Burma to talk with the military leaders who have been accused by groups like Human Watch and Amnesty of using forced and child labor, trafficking in humans, and engaging in sexual violence, while keeping Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest? You would be okay with them staging the meeting on tv in way that legitimizes that regime? You would be okay with meeting them without ANY preconditions? You would expect that a face to face meeting with these people would soften them up and make them rethink their misdeeds? Is that what you're saying?

on neutral grounds...Paris used to be a favorite as were most Scandinavian capitols.

Diplomacy goes a lot futher than arrogance to win the hearts and minds of people, regardless of their leaders.

"You would support a president flying to Burma to talk with the military leaders who have been accused by groups like Human Watch and Amnesty of using forced and child labor, trafficking in humans, and engaging in sexual violence, while keeping Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest? "

Yes, provided there are no security concerns (which I suspect there would be), so in that case, neutral ground would be best.

You would be okay with them staging the meeting on tv in way that legitimizes that regime?

Yes. The regime is already legitimate in the eyes of the people they are controlling... if there are multiple factions claiming control our leader should be willing to meet with BOTH factions (individually and/or seperately) to show they are trying to foster a peace.

You would be okay with meeting them without ANY preconditions?

Other than security concerns listed above... ABSOLUTELY.

"You would expect that a face to face meeting with these people would soften them up and make them rethink their misdeeds?"

You never know until you try and not trying is just bush-like.

a leader of a country with questionable alliance?

And what on earth is the job of Secretary Of State - - that hard working taxpayers pay for?

On November 19, 1977, Sadat became the first Arab leader to officially visit Israel when he met with Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, and spoke before the Knesset in Jerusalem about his views on how to achieve a comprehensive peace to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which included the full implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338. He made the visit after receiving an invitation from Begin and once again sought a permanent peace settlement (much of the Arab World was outraged by the visit, due to their widespread view of Israel as a rogue state, and a tyrannical symbol of imperialism). This visit went against the U.S. and Soviet Union’s intentions, which were to revive the international Geneva Conference. In 1978, this resulted in the Camp David Peace Agreement, for which Sadat and Begin received the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Sadat

or did he just fly into Tel Aviv unannounced and show up at the Knesset?

I'm sure this meeting was very carefully arranged.

Why stop at the leaders of those 5 countries when there is another poor misunderstood soul out there that needs a hug? :eyes:

Last time I checked, he's not the leader of a sovereign nation-state.

"Needs a hug"? Please.

Wouldn't Murdoch be upset to know that you are here spilling your vitriol instead of a Neocon sanctioned outlet?

My goodness, you almost Hannitized me there for a second.

The only time a President meets with another country's leader is if peace with the country is a stategic necessity (imo, that should be w/ ALL countries, but, whatever....), and the talks at lower levels break down, the POTUS could meet with the other leader -- first with a team, and if that also fails, one-on-one.

If (s)he refuses to do so, I believe that encourages and validates an enemy even more than his/er meeting with that leader would do. It's like choosing to spit in someone's face and then walk away as a solution to a problem, when looking him/her straight in the eye would not only do the trick, but bring respect to both sides as well. It's stupid macho posturing, and we know how well THAT'S worked up to now.... :eyes:

TC

tallents and abilities of the Prez at the time!" I DON'T want Shrub to meet with the despot leaders of the World! I can just see him stomping off in a huff!

I can still remember BC meeting with Arrafat. I was comfortable with that meeting because I had confidence in BC's ability to communicate and negotate. I have NO confidence in Shrub! Right now, I don't have an opinion either way on Obama, Hillary is a maybe, Biden is a bit of a stronger maybe.

No one can understand every situation in every way, especially before the situation materializes.

Saying "yes" to such a question is almost as dumb as posing the question in the first place.

Edit: Content.

or viceversa!

Imagine Sadat demanding Israel's withdrawal from Sinai as a precondition to meeting with Begin.

to meet without reserving that option. Different situations call for different solutions.

Edit: Content.

to talk with Begin, just as Begin was.

There are no reasons for not normalizing relations with Cuba outright.

There are no justifications for America's bellicose stance against Chavez and the Venezuelan working class.

We should be talking rather than bombing!

Of course they should.

"Aha, someone who agrees with me!" But no, just the opposite.

:)

political advantage.

And no, I am NOT saying you did that with your poll. I am seeing NO fault with you whatever.

The issue is very real. We should be willing to do diplomacy before we do war. IN having seen the debate where this got asked, I think both Clinton and Obama said essentially the same thing. There's no way that Obama would be so naive as to flit off to, say, Tehran and be used for propaganda. There's no way Clinton would refuse an honestly sought meeting even with a guy like Ahmadinejad.

Putin.

Every situation is different.

That's why we need Biden. He knows the difference.
It's not all negotiations first - as Hillary said.
And it's not all "I will meet with all the leaders" as Obama said.

This is not a game. Foreign affairs have to managed appropriately by someone
that understands the depth of each country.

I'll be honest, if either Hillary or Obama get elected, I have concerns.
They better pick someone like Kerry to be their SOS.

proposition that it is the job/duty/prerogative of the US President to go around solving the problems of the rest of the world. That tendency seems to get us into a lot of trouble that is none of our business. We need to learn to ration our involvements and our resources.